Response needed, AMA Model Aircraft Rule
07-09-2014, 09:10 AM
#28
I am with Ravill here, having said this myself to fellow modelers recently. I am interested in FPV and would like to try it, but it needs to be addressed as a different hobby now that the FAA and the Government have decided to outlaw its practice. It is a totally different experience than traditional RC flying and unfortunately there are some real problems with its perception by the public and the FAA. I recently had a neighbor stop by and "interview" me thoroughly as someone unknown has been flying an FPV quad around our neighborhood and peeping around in peoples yards with it. She knew I fly RC and thought it was me! I wish I could have told her the FPV Quads are not a segment of MY hobby. So maybe we need to petition the AMA to consider a separation here... As for foamies and helis, seriously Ravill, don't ever compare them to FPV quads again! Please! I can't imagine why you chose this thread to bash them.
Thanks for the effort Andy I have used your efforts to send the message.
Thanks for the effort Andy I have used your efforts to send the message.
You know, I could potentially see how FPV could be fun and have a great hobby aspect to it.
I can see myself wanting to "virtually" sit in the cockpit of my bandit as I do vertical take off and flat spins, etc.... just to see what flying aerobatics might approach to feeling like.
But long distance FPV over homes or what ever, just seems like a different kind of Remote control. Not the kind I'm interested in condoning if it is endangering what so many of us really enjoy: Line of sight RC. Its like my own airshow everytime I fly.
How "married" is the AMA (and hence us, me!) to FPV I wonder?
I can see myself wanting to "virtually" sit in the cockpit of my bandit as I do vertical take off and flat spins, etc.... just to see what flying aerobatics might approach to feeling like.
But long distance FPV over homes or what ever, just seems like a different kind of Remote control. Not the kind I'm interested in condoning if it is endangering what so many of us really enjoy: Line of sight RC. Its like my own airshow everytime I fly.
How "married" is the AMA (and hence us, me!) to FPV I wonder?
07-09-2014, 01:49 PM
#29
Remember this is not just about FPV.
The FAA is stating that they expect us to secure "approval" from the "airport" when operating withing 5 miles of an airport. For the last 33 years, the recommendation has been to "notify" any airport within 3 miles
There are between 19,000 to 20,000 airports in the US.
19,000 people now get to decide (on a whim?), case by case? day to day? whether you can fly RC in 10% of the land area of the USA.
The FAA is stating that they expect us to secure "approval" from the "airport" when operating withing 5 miles of an airport. For the last 33 years, the recommendation has been to "notify" any airport within 3 miles
There are between 19,000 to 20,000 airports in the US.
19,000 people now get to decide (on a whim?), case by case? day to day? whether you can fly RC in 10% of the land area of the USA.
07-09-2014, 05:12 PM
#31
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redstone, CO, USA
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember this is not just about FPV.
The FAA is stating that they expect us to secure "approval" from the "airport" when operating withing 5 miles of an airport. For the last 33 years, the recommendation has been to "notify" any airport within 3 miles
There are between 19,000 to 20,000 airports in the US.
19,000 people now get to decide (on a whim?), case by case? day to day? whether you can fly RC in 10% of the land area of the USA.
The FAA is stating that they expect us to secure "approval" from the "airport" when operating withing 5 miles of an airport. For the last 33 years, the recommendation has been to "notify" any airport within 3 miles
There are between 19,000 to 20,000 airports in the US.
19,000 people now get to decide (on a whim?), case by case? day to day? whether you can fly RC in 10% of the land area of the USA.
You think THEIR insurers or AMA is going to indemnify?
- Mike
Last edited by speed is life; 07-09-2014 at 07:27 PM.
07-09-2014, 05:47 PM
#32
Here is the potential kicker to the "secure approval" part of the FAA interpretation; given our litigious society these days, how many airport managers are going think twice before they hang it out and give "approval" to an activity that has the potential for lawsuits after an accident/incident. Betting their attorneys advice is: "just say no".
You think THEIR insurers or AMA is going to indemnify?
- Mike
You think THEIR insurers or AMA is going to indemnify?
- Mike
07-09-2014, 07:09 PM
#33
I agree that the only threat I see to traditional RC flying in this new mandate, the "within 5miles notify the tower" provision. Most tower controllers are task saturated on a daily basis. I went thru PHX a couple weeks ago in the late eve and one guy was doing tower, ground and clearance. He didn't stop talking (transmitting or receiving) the whole time I was on freq. Kinda crazy really. (Never mind that there are 50 TSA goons for every passenger, in the high skills ATC tower they are severely short staffed! LOL+grimace+head scratching) These guys do not have any time for random phone calls from the local RC fields. Yeah that was PHX but a lot of us have really busy local GA airports nearby, just not International ones, I guarantee those controllers are busy too. I think the reason the FAA wants the 5 mile rule is they envision FPV flying objects ranging out to 5 miles. Not trad RC where you can barely see your jet/heli/foamy 1/2 mile away. So AMA, dump FPV!
Last edited by husafreak; 07-09-2014 at 07:11 PM.
07-09-2014, 07:37 PM
#34
I also have said most towers are going to be to busy to take phone calls from modelers, And what about the none towered airports? I think
it;s obvious that the FAA did not think this out to well nor did they seek or use advice from the AMA.
Just in my area I know of four RC fields that are within five miles of an airport and some others that may be, I think if the FAA goes ahead
with this plan it will cause a lot of lost fields and lawsuits.
it;s obvious that the FAA did not think this out to well nor did they seek or use advice from the AMA.
Just in my area I know of four RC fields that are within five miles of an airport and some others that may be, I think if the FAA goes ahead
with this plan it will cause a lot of lost fields and lawsuits.
Last edited by ira d; 07-09-2014 at 09:23 PM.
07-09-2014, 07:45 PM
#35
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redstone, CO, USA
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Added thought re: the above from Husafreak and the 5 mile thing.
[Quote]
from the FAA publication:
"Finally, the statute sets a requirement for model aircraft operating within 5 miles (9) of an airport to notify the airport operator AND control tower, where applicable, prior to operating. 10 (11) If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not......
[Quote]
looks to me like not only do you need approval from the tower supervisor if there is a tower but, in addition, you need approval from the airport operator. a 2 step process in many cases.
Now the airport operator may well be a private owner, a municipality (city manager?), County, State, or even the Federal Government (in the case of a military installation). Each "operator" entity will likely have its own peculiar agenda over and above the tower guys responsibility of separation of traffic.
this is a can of worms.......and you know what? If an RC guy who also happens to hold some form of pilot certificate were to run afoul of an over zealous Fed while flying his model, he could be in for certificate action.....swell.
Are there over zealous FAA guys? ..........Just ask Bob Hoover if you doubt it.
- Mike.
[Quote]
from the FAA publication:
"Finally, the statute sets a requirement for model aircraft operating within 5 miles (9) of an airport to notify the airport operator AND control tower, where applicable, prior to operating. 10 (11) If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not......
[Quote]
looks to me like not only do you need approval from the tower supervisor if there is a tower but, in addition, you need approval from the airport operator. a 2 step process in many cases.
Now the airport operator may well be a private owner, a municipality (city manager?), County, State, or even the Federal Government (in the case of a military installation). Each "operator" entity will likely have its own peculiar agenda over and above the tower guys responsibility of separation of traffic.
this is a can of worms.......and you know what? If an RC guy who also happens to hold some form of pilot certificate were to run afoul of an over zealous Fed while flying his model, he could be in for certificate action.....swell.
Are there over zealous FAA guys? ..........Just ask Bob Hoover if you doubt it.
- Mike.
07-10-2014, 10:30 AM
#37
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Sunshine state, when it's not raining!
Posts: 8,131
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My belief is that if "we modelers" don't separate ourselves from the FPV, UAV aspect we will go down with them. As it currently stands normal everyday club fliers are not in the line of sight and I would like to keep it that way. As I noted in my response to the FAA, I am a modeler and have no desire for the drone aspect what ever category it may fall in. I abide by the CBO rules and also only fly at a designated site.
Please separate yourselves in your responses?
Please separate yourselves in your responses?
07-10-2014, 03:53 PM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Nowata,
OK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jets and giant scale were not always allowed by the AMA were they? It's a good thing there were people willing to stand up for those segments of the hobby back when they were still new and seemed dangerous and threatening. Putting a camera on a model aircraft does not turn it into a dangerous weapon. It is still a model aircraft. To suggest we turn on responsible FPV pilots who operate according to the current AMA safety rules and guidelines is no different than if I were to suggest doing the same towards those aspects of the hobby I do not participate in. I have no interest in ever flying rc jets,yet I consider them part of the family,just as I do control line,sailplane,giant scale,3d,and other aspects of the hobby. By calling yourself "we modelers" you are giving the middle finger to other people who also consider themselves "we modelers" who happen to also enjoy FPV. I'm seeing a lot of this attitude on these forums. It is not the government we should fear,it is the dividers and backstabbers amongst us who will cause the most damage to our beloved hobby.
My belief is that if "we modelers" don't separate ourselves from the FPV, UAV aspect we will go down with them. As it currently stands normal everyday club fliers are not in the line of sight and I would like to keep it that way. As I noted in my response to the FAA, I am a modeler and have no desire for the drone aspect what ever category it may fall in. I abide by the CBO rules and also only fly at a designated site.
Please separate yourselves in your responses?
Please separate yourselves in your responses?
Last edited by jeffsend; 07-10-2014 at 04:45 PM.
07-10-2014, 10:21 PM
#41
The issue is simply how far out can these models be operated. With traditional "line of sight" flying it is not far at all. With FPV and powerful transmitters it could be very far. With line of sight just landing on a runway right in front of you can be a challenge. Flying through the clouds a laughable proposition. But with FPV you could make a nice precision landing a mile away. Flying high in the clouds would be cake with telemetry and return home function. It is NOT the same. Middle finger? Not at all! But it is a different type of hobby and all we are suggesting is it should have its own independent governing body. Whose enthusiasts can deal with the government and the FAA independently. Good luck to them too.
07-11-2014, 07:23 AM
#42
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Nowata,
OK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA defines it as line of sight with a spotter. As a beginner in FPV,I do not want to be forced to go fly outside of my club setting without fellow modelers there to share the enjoyment and help me keep it within safe bounds. The AMA never has defended beyond line of sight FPV,so that point is moot.
07-11-2014, 08:35 AM
#43
Yes you have a good point. I think FPV with a spotter flown by AMA members at AMA sanctioned airfields using AMA guidelines (like a couple of my own club members) is great. I recently purchased a CY Stingray and researched available FPV goggle systems from Fatshark (sp?) fully intending to try it myself. But our government is so reactionary and overbearing these days, this reaction to using this new form of entertainment looks like an excuse to also strangle our old forms of entertainment. I don't think they really recognize the AMA as a power to ensure the responsible use of this new technology by the general public. And why they would specifically disallow the use of a spotter as per AMA rules is really strange. It would be better if they passed these new rules granting an exemption for AMA sanctioned approved airfields. They should allow US to enjoy all aspects of our great hobby at our own fields, and pass those restrictive laws for private parties operating independently. But they didn't so it is really a question of where do we go from here? What would make my previous post moot would be if the FAA/Gov't is trying to control or monitor all flying model activity starting now, FPV or otherwise.
07-11-2014, 11:26 AM
#45
It just keeps getting better.
http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2014/07/n...&type=headline
"Los Angeles imposes no limits on drones for personal use outside of parks. Because state law specifically defines aircraft as "manned" flying objects, police can't regulate even reckless or careless use.
"We're looking to work with our governmental liaison unit to see if maybe we can change that wording to get in front of this, so that we can say aircraft that's unmanned or manned," said police air support division Lt. Phil Smith. "All these things are pretty fluid. At this point if we get complaints, we forward them to the FAA because it's not a crime."
In Chicago, where there's no ordinance regulating drone use, Alderman Scott Waguespack is seeking restrictions to protect personal privacy. He has proposed an ordinance restricting public and private use.
"When I was a kid, we used to have little rockets. Now you have the capabilities to do what the police can do: watch people or watch events," Waguespack said. "It leaves the door open to people doing whatever they like.""
http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2014/07/n...&type=headline
"Los Angeles imposes no limits on drones for personal use outside of parks. Because state law specifically defines aircraft as "manned" flying objects, police can't regulate even reckless or careless use.
"We're looking to work with our governmental liaison unit to see if maybe we can change that wording to get in front of this, so that we can say aircraft that's unmanned or manned," said police air support division Lt. Phil Smith. "All these things are pretty fluid. At this point if we get complaints, we forward them to the FAA because it's not a crime."
In Chicago, where there's no ordinance regulating drone use, Alderman Scott Waguespack is seeking restrictions to protect personal privacy. He has proposed an ordinance restricting public and private use.
"When I was a kid, we used to have little rockets. Now you have the capabilities to do what the police can do: watch people or watch events," Waguespack said. "It leaves the door open to people doing whatever they like.""
Last edited by mr_matt; 07-11-2014 at 11:28 AM.
07-15-2014, 04:43 PM
#47
Thread Starter
Thanks, It's really not an issue of FPV vs Jets vs Props etc. Unfortunately the FAA has tried to lump us all together whether we like it or not. This is why we all must fill out this complaint form to the FAA. If you haven't done so already...
What are you waiting for? Loss of your field? Come on get off your duff and doit! lol.
What are you waiting for? Loss of your field? Come on get off your duff and doit! lol.
07-15-2014, 09:56 PM
#48
My main club is inside 3mi to Pappy Boington airport so were already under the watchful eye of the airport and the regional FAA rep. Luckily he is RC friendly and we have met with him already to discuss our club and the air space around the airport.
What worries me is any new and strict rules that may challenge our situation.
My back up field is north of the airport more than 3mi but inside of 5mi. We also have a small private full scale airfield near by north of the club field. So basically if the FAA gets really tough were all going to lose at least two clubs for well over 100 members combined.
What worries me is any new and strict rules that may challenge our situation.
My back up field is north of the airport more than 3mi but inside of 5mi. We also have a small private full scale airfield near by north of the club field. So basically if the FAA gets really tough were all going to lose at least two clubs for well over 100 members combined.
07-16-2014, 09:01 AM
#50
My main club is inside 3mi to Pappy Boington airport so were already under the watchful eye of the airport and the regional FAA rep. Luckily he is RC friendly and we have met with him already to discuss our club and the air space around the airport.
What worries me is any new and strict rules that may challenge our situation.
My back up field is north of the airport more than 3mi but inside of 5mi. We also have a small private full scale airfield near by north of the club field. So basically if the FAA gets really tough were all going to lose at least two clubs for well over 100 members combined.
What worries me is any new and strict rules that may challenge our situation.
My back up field is north of the airport more than 3mi but inside of 5mi. We also have a small private full scale airfield near by north of the club field. So basically if the FAA gets really tough were all going to lose at least two clubs for well over 100 members combined.
Yes Chris. My concern parallels yours. I am concerned about "frenemies" of the club, either internal club "experts" or external. When they find out perhaps a single "tender ear" at an airport can shut down a field? Well human nature being what it is (I mean look at some of these threads) I don't like handing my fields future over to the whims of some disgruntled members (either of the club or the public)